Well, I don't remember what day the story broke, but Bush did go from a 5 point lead on Nov. 2-4 to a 2 point lead on Nov. 5-6. As The Vorlon would tell you though, that might just be random noise....and even if it did indicate a true tightening, it's hard to say for sure that it was the DUI story.

I am inclined to believe the DUI story did make a little difference though, since Bush's campaign was so heavily based on the idea that he was more moral than Gore and would do a better job restoring honor and dignity and morality to the Oval Office. Since he ran so much on his character, anything that damaged his character had the potential to hurt him a bit.

Hey John Ford. Look for another one of those "suspicious stories" to be played by the dems just prior to election night. You can bet they have a nugget just waiting to be thrown to th public. I don't think it will fool enough people this time though, sadly it will fool some. Some people just don't like playing fair, because they can't win that way. Rules don't really mean anything to some people.

I agree, it shouldn't have mattered. But you could say the same thing about the Swift Boat stuff.

Face it, both sides do it. I agree that we should talk about the issues and not all of this extraneous BS, but that's politics unfortunately, and it's naive to say that one side is worse than the other.

I agree, it shouldn't have mattered. But you could say the same thing about the Swift Boat stuff.

Face it, both sides do it. I agree that we should talk about the issues and not all of this extraneous BS, but that's politics unfortunately, and it's naive to say that one side is worse than the other.

Your one of the most reasonable people I have talked to about that issue. I think debating the issues we face at hand are the important things in this election. Not trying to show who served honorably 30 years ago while in the service. I don't think military service even qualifies a person to hold the presidency. Im not a Clinton fan, but I never thought the fact he evaded military service disqualified him from becoming prez., although I think he had other issues that did.

Bush was asked if he had a DWI arrest in the '70s. He said no. Releasing the DWI arrest information at whatever time they felt like was completely fair game. Bush was attacking Gore for his positions on the issues in 1974. Of course a DWI by the older Bush in 1976 was relevant.

Bush was asked if he had a DWI arrest in the '70s. He said no. Releasing the DWI arrest information at whatever time they felt like was completely fair game. Bush was attacking Gore for his positions on the issues in 1974. Of course a DWI by the older Bush in 1976 was relevant.

A couple of things. #1 Why was this issue (DWI) not settled in 2000 if you still have problems with it and why are we re-hashing it all now? #2 What was Bush attacking Gore for in 1974? I think most people would disagree that a DWI by GWB in 1976 is not relevant as to whether he is capable of performing as president.

Bush was asked if he had a DWI arrest in the '70s. He said no. Releasing the DWI arrest information at whatever time they felt like was completely fair game. Bush was attacking Gore for his positions on the issues in 1974. Of course a DWI by the older Bush in 1976 was relevant.

A couple of things. #1 Why was this issue (DWI) not settled in 2000 if you still have problems with it and why are we re-hashing it all now? #2 What was Bush attacking Gore for in 1974? I think most people would disagree that a DWI by GWB in 1976 is not relevant as to whether he is capable of performing as president.

As I said, I agree it's not relevant. Also, Ford was the one who brought it up, saying that's why Bush's numbers dropped in 2000. I haven't heard anyone else talk about it this year in the media.

The record of accuracy achieved by Gallup in these "horse-race" or "head-to head" measurements is unsurpassed. For example, in the sixteen presidential elections since 1936, the deviation between Gallup's final pre-election survey figures and the actual election results is 2.2% and, since 1960, only 1.5%.

Gallup has been polling for 70 years - yes you can pick on one poll here and there - in 70 years you get a few bad polls.

But year in year out, poll after poll after poll, Gallup can go toe to toe and come out looking just fine

That being said, I will post AGAIN for those of you who missed it the 1st, 2nd, 9th, and 43rd times I posted it...

Point #1

The Gallup poll is designed to do one thing, and one thing only.... Predict the outcome of an election when you are very close to the actual election.

The Gallup likely voter screen is very sensitive to changes in voter motivation and interest and hence when you are many weeks out produces large and artificial swings in the race.

Point #2

Any poll taken right now is, by definition "wrong" in the Gallup likely voter screen is based on if the election were held tomorrow - the election is NOT tomorrow

Point #3

Gallup has Bush +8 among RVsGallup has Bush +13 among LVs

This 5% gap is historically a bit large, but simply represents that GOP supportes are really cranked right now. Their candidate is up and doing well. DanRatherBiasedMemoGate has the GOP faithfull all worked up, while Dem supporters are a bit depressed for all the same reasons. - Of course more GOP supportes are interested and thus "likely" right now.

Will this huge intensity gap between the GOP and Dems last until election day..?

Probably not.

But this poll is a snapshot of Today, NOT a prediction of Tomorrow.

and TODAY the GOP is more energized

What does Gallup predict for Nov 2nd..?

Lets wait for their Nov 1st Poll to find out

Point #4

Gallup uses the "purest" of all methodologoes in the sense that they weight very little and place vey few "boundry conditions" on their sample.

The benefit of this is that when the electorate truly actually does change, Gallup will catch it when many other pollsters will throw the proverbial baby out with the methodological bathwater by weighting changes away.

In 2002 when most pundits were "stunned" (To use Zogby's words) that the GOP gained in both the House and the SEnate, Gallup predicted it perfectly - The final Gallup "Generic" congressional ballot had the GOP up 4% (actual was 5%) while Zogby, ABC, etc all had the Dems up 4 or 5

In 1994 when the GOP wave took control of the House and Senate, everybody was stunned - except Gallup who also had it right. (Mason Dixon also had an amazing year in 1994 as well to be fair)

The price Gallup pays for this is they get a bit more pure random noise in their results than other pollsters.

It's not a "flaw" it's a choice.

Bottom line

Is Bush up 13%..?

I personally don't think so.

I think he has a "real" lead of 4% or so, plus some "froth" due to the GOP being rather cranked up right now.

For the record, I also expect that we will see a lot of national polls in the next few days where Bush is up high single digits.

It likely will not last, but that's where the race is now

« Last Edit: September 17, 2004, 10:50:21 am by The Vorlon »

Logged

No man's liberty is safe while Congress is in session...Thomas Jefferson

Shouldn't Gallup develop a system that actually tracks the election! If it is a system designed to predict the outcome about a week or so before the election, as Vorlon has said- fantastic. But why release polls using this methodology one and a half months before the election if they know it's not accurate? That applies to state polls too. In 2000, as Vorlon says, they were out by 1.82%- which- yes is a good call, but that is based on the final poll- which has Bush winning the PV, when we all know he lost. So- Gallup, along with any other company who had Bush ahead, got the election result wrong. Of course, it didnt matter when it came to the electoral college, Bush won, but Gallup was soley predicting the popular vote. If the Vorlon is correct in regards to Gallups methodology (which I think we can all be sure he is!) then im not trusting a single Gallup poll until much much later.

Shouldn't Gallup develop a system that actually tracks the election! If it is a system designed to predict the outcome about a week or so before the election, as Vorlon has said- fantastic. But why release polls using this methodology one and a half months before the election if they know it's not accurate? That applies to state polls too. In 2000, as Vorlon says, they were out by 1.82%- which- yes is a good call, but that is based on the final poll- which has Bush winning the PV, when we all know he lost. So- Gallup, along with any other company who had Bush ahead, got the election result wrong. Of course, it didnt matter when it came to the electoral college, Bush won, but Gallup was soley predicting the popular vote. If the Vorlon is correct in regards to Gallups methodology (which I think we can all be sure he is!) then im not trusting a single Gallup poll until much much later.

You just don't trust it because Bush is winning handily and you can't accept the fact that Americans are "stupid" enough to elect Bush again.

Erm...no, States Rights, if you look through my earlier posts you will see that I state pretty clearly that Bush is still ahead by up to 2%. I don't believe he is 13 points ahead and there are up to a half dozen other polls that say the same. Secondly- where does this 'Americans are stupid' thing come from? I have American relative and I study American history and American politics at University and some of my political heroes are American. So I think that your hissy-fit post was a little uncalled for.

Actually, I agree with states, I CAN'T believe Americans are stupid enough to vote for Bush. That is the only way I can avoid severe depression prior to the election. The idea that more people believe Bush should win this election than don't seriously makes me question the intelligence of the American people.

Logged

"The most important thing to remember is, no matter what anybody tells you, it is never, ever unpatriotic or un-American to question anything in a democracy"

Erm...no, States Rights, if you look through my earlier posts you will see that I state pretty clearly that Bush is still ahead by up to 2%. I don't believe he is 13 points ahead and there are up to a half dozen other polls that say the same. Secondly- where does this 'Americans are stupid' thing come from? I have American relative and I study American history and American politics at University and some of my political heroes are American. So I think that your hissy-fit post was a little uncalled for.

I know many brits and liberals..some on this board that feel America is stupid to re-elect Bush. I don't believe he is 13% ahead but I do believe its closer to 8-10% either way its unrecoverable. Bush wins with +300 Evs.